The question arises each year, “who plays the toughest schedule?” At the beginning of the season, the NCAA usually releases a rating of each team’s schedule based on their opponents’ win/loss record from the previous season. This is a good method but it does have its obvious flaws.

The first flaw is basing the ratings on opponent’s records from the PREVIOUS season. Let’s look at a couple of examples. Last year, I had Florida as my surprise winner of the SEC East and they wound up going 11-1 in the regular season. I also had UCF as one of my top non-BCS teams and they finished with 10 wins. However, if you used the NCAA method you only got credit for playing two teams who were a combined 12-13 in 2011.

Two years ago, I had Houston in my Top 25 and they finished 13-1 and ranked #18. I also had Georgia and Clemson on my Most Improved Teams List and counted them as a ranked team for the upcoming schedule and they finished the regular season ranked #12 and #21. If you used the NCAA method you only got credit for playing 3 teams with losing records (all below .500 in ‘10).

On the flip side of the coin Notre Dame was in an obvious rebuilding year in ‘07 yet was still counted as a 10-3 team if you based strength of schedule on 2006’s record and they were far from a January bowl team in ‘07 at just 3-9!

The second flaw is basing it on pure overall records. If a team played an FCS school that was 11-1 in 2007, that counted as a MUCH tougher game in the NCAA ratings than facing a team like Alabama who was 7-6 in ‘07 but #1 at the end of ‘08 regular season! My ratings obviously had Bama ranked as a MUCH tougher team than any FCS foe.

Another great example came from last year. In 2011, Ohio St went 6-7 and any team FCS team that had a winning record in 2011 would have counted as a tougher game in the NCAA method than facing a Buckeyes team who would go to be the only school in the country to finish the season unbeaten in 2012.

On the flip side let’s look at 2009’s Ball St team. They were in an obvious rebuilding year and my power ratings had them only winning 2 or 3 games. My methods gave teams credit for a weak foe when facing Ball St but basing it on the previous year’s record, teams were given credit for playing a 12-2 team which is what they finished in 2008! That is a MAJOR flaw!

Now let’s turn our attention to 2013. This year I again decided to see what the NCAA method would come up with for toughest opponent’s faced, which I always list in the magazine. Below is a chart of all 126 teams and the combined 2012 opponents’ records. It is ranked in order of highest % of opponent wins (or toughest schedule) to lowest % of opponent wins (or easiest schedule).

Again this is the NCAA's method and not MINE!

When I release my toughest schedule rankings in the upcoming magazine my rankings take two major factors into account. The first is my 9 sets of Power Ratings. This ensures that an FCS team is rated much lower than USC and Virginia Tech, two teams that finished just 7-6 last year! The second factor is the amount of home and away games played.